Rational Vaxxer

Subunit vaccines for hsv- why it's not feasible

35 posts in this topic

The document you have linked to appears to have been published in 2011.

Another document published one year later — also with Halford's name on it — reveals that the ICP0- vaccine is no different at six months post-challenge from a subunit vaccine.

We all want to see RVx succeed, but there is a clear contradiction in the literature (unless I have misunderstood the data — which is likely — in which case, somebody please correct me).

OFMDH and SupermansJustice like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, takeoff-signet-pretzel said:

.....but there is a clear contradiction in the literature (unless I have misunderstood the data — which is likely — in which case, somebody please correct me).

It's not a contradiction. While the 2011 study in mice showed it offered protection, first for ocular (eyeballs) and then in 2015 vagina viral  exposure; while the 2012 study in guinea pigs showed it rapidly faded and was just as effective as the subunit boogie man for vagina viral exposure.

The murine model (mice) is seriously flawed and using it to draw conclusions about people is completely ignorant and naive.  The virus doesn't reactive in mice, the virus doesn't block MCH I presentation (immune response) in mice, and to even infect mice the mice have to have large doses of female sex hormones to damper their immune system. 

Even in guinea pigs, like mice the virus doesn't block MCH I presentation (immune response) that well, however it at least reactivates and mimics clinically the human presentation. You can also just starve the little animals and its enough stress for them to OB

Ian Frazer's autobiography talks about the development of the HPV vaccine and he knew not to get excited about mice results, in his own words "mice results often lie". 

This is no different. The mice results are malarky.  

 

 

Edited by OhFuckMyDickHurts
SupermansJustice and dont quit!17 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 hours ago, Rational Vaxxer said:

Because science.

Yes it's because................. Science!

LMFAO. xD

I've heard better explanations how cooties work from kindergarteners.

Edited by OhFuckMyDickHurts
SupermansJustice and Herpes go away like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, OhFuckMyDickHurts said:

It's not a contradiction. While the 2011 study in mice showed it offered protection, first for ocular (eyeballs) and then in 2015 vagina viral  exposure; while the 2012 study in guinea pigs showed it rapidly faded and was just as effective as the subunit boogie man for vagina viral exposure.

The murine model (mice) is seriously flawed and using it to draw conclusions about people is completely ignorant and naive.  The virus doesn't reactive in mice, the virus doesn't block MCH I presentation (immune response) in mice, and to even infect mice the mice have to have large doses of female sex hormones to damper their immune system. 

Even in guinea pigs, like mice the virus doesn't block MCH I presentation (immune response) that well, however it at least reactivates and mimics clinically the human presentation. You can also just starve the little animals and its enough stress for them to OB

Ian Frazer's autobiography talks about the development of the HPV vaccine and he knew not to get excited about mice results, in his own words "mice results often lie". 

This is no different. The mice results are malarky.  

 

 

Regarding Ian Frazer's statement , Im not sure if you can use it for this topic becuase this is comparing two vaccines in mice. It is not comparing a one vaccine's results between  mice and human trials. No ? 

Edited by moialbalushi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SupermansJustice said:

Ian Frazer's point is that you cannot assume that success in mice studies should not necessarily be used to predict success in human studies. That is why for HSV particularly, using guinea pigs is so important. It is well known in the scientific community that mice studies with HSV can be very unreliable which is why you need to make significant alterations

Yes I understoob buddy. Thats what I meant. Imagine if u want to test two vaccines. At least lets say : to check which one is more efficient. With no details. And you applied the study on mice only. Wont it give you a general idea about the  results ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2017 at 4:18 AM, OhFuckMyDickHurts said:

Yes it's because................. Science!

LMFAO. xD

I've heard better explanations how cooties work from kindergarteners.

trust me these folks r bogus .. they said they will get the vaccine out in april and now they r hiding and are asking us to wait .. they cant even say that the vaccine will be avialble by years end .. and trust me this guy who has invested money in the company claims that this vaccine works .. there was this other person who got unbearable side effects from the vaccine so maybe that is y they want to bypass fda trials 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 hours ago, Herpes go away said:

trust me these folks r bogus .. they said they will get the vaccine out in april and now they r hiding and are asking us to wait .. they cant even say that the vaccine will be avialble by years end .. and trust me this guy who has invested money in the company claims that this vaccine works .. there was this other person who got unbearable side effects from the vaccine so maybe that is y they want to bypass fda trials 

We definitely were not given the full picture when joining the trial. 

He made this public in in his Perspective article pg 41 that he gave himself in total 11 shots/boosters  (1 shot then 3 double shot boosters and after it wore off another 4 double shots) before the St. Kitts trial.  Again he knew before the trial it would wear off and omitted that fact when we joined.

He later admitted when we were there for the second shot it had no durability but maybe it could for us..... BS, the fact we had a pre-existing infection would mean the virus would be partially neutralized by the Ab's we already had from the wild infection so any response would be even weaker than his.

 

A graph of someone who already has HSV2 is not going to show much of an increase.

Edited by OhFuckMyDickHurts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I admit I cannot believe why a vaccine would be tested on people already infected. But what does it do for those who are not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, WilsoInAus said:

Well I admit I cannot believe why a vaccine would be tested on people already infected. But what does it do for those who are not?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. If the vaccine is therapeutic, then it needs to be tested on someone who already has HSV.

Rational Vaxxer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary purpose of a vaccine when it comes to viruses is prevention. There are no FDA approved therapeutic vaccines against viruses. Therapeutic vaccines are to date of limited effectiveness against what they are targeting. It just strikes me as more sensible to develop a preventative vaccine for approval and use and if it has therapeutic benefit then that's superb. Further, a therapeutic vaccine has material implications for maybe 1-2% of people with HSV-2 say, yet 100% of people who do not. That would ensure faster payback, bigger investment and benefit from a vaccine for all sooner!

LillianPanos likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WilsoInAus said:

The primary purpose of a vaccine when it comes to viruses is prevention. There are no FDA approved therapeutic vaccines against viruses. Therapeutic vaccines are to date of limited effectiveness against what they are targeting. It just strikes me as more sensible to develop a preventative vaccine for approval and use and if it has therapeutic benefit then that's superb. Further, a therapeutic vaccine has material implications for maybe 1-2% of people with HSV-2 say, yet 100% of people who do not. That would ensure faster payback, bigger investment and benefit from a vaccine for all sooner!

They can do both; therapeutic and prophylactic. Certainly, a therapeutic vaccine, if effective, would help alleviate the physical suffering and reduce the likelihood of transmission in the absence of a prophylactic.

RVX Patient and Investor and MoniqueLow like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not extensively, but nothing I have written is incorrect, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there has been a person who fell terribly ill after  getting the vax and u just advocate the use of this shit vax ? if halford isnt well with all due respect arent there other scientists and doctors to csrry forward his research ? this lame reason doesnt justify as to y compassionate sales were not done .. im not saying whateever happened to bill is right .. its unfortunate and i respect his work but u guys coming up with the line that the sales didnt happen coz.he is not well really doesnt make sense  

this shit vaccine doesnt work anywhich ways .. try investing in ademedus or genocea which seem to be a better option :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SupermansJustice said:

"Therapeutic vaccines are to date of limited effectiveness against what they are targeting. "

Yes. This is very incorrect. Many in the pipeline with more than "limited" effectiveness.

Like what? As you say, they are all pipeline and not approved as yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herpes go away said:

there has been a person who fell terribly ill after  getting the vax and u just advocate the use of this shit vax ? if halford isnt well with all due respect arent there other scientists and doctors to csrry forward his research ? this lame reason doesnt justify as to y compassionate sales were not done .. im not saying whateever happened to bill is right .. its unfortunate and i respect his work but u guys coming up with the line that the sales didnt happen coz.he is not well really doesnt make sense  

this shit vaccine doesnt work anywhich ways .. try investing in ademedus or genocea which seem to be a better option :)

Yeah, dying, terrible excuse.

Someone has to make the doses, and it ain't no dunkin donuts mister hyder!

How about u go away?  Unbelievable attitude towards people actually doing the work to help.

moialbalushi likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SupermansJustice said:

So? The field of immunotherapeutic vaccines has only recently exploded in the last few years. There's one I think you've heard of. It's called GEN-003

Yes we have all heard of it, less effective than antivirals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there just so much to learn!

Conclusion: There is no apparent advantage of GEN-003 over valacyclovir (Valtrex)—the standard of care for treating and preventing outbreaks. That's been known for quite a while.

Rational Vaxxer and fixme1 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SupermansJustice said:

Maybe you should read my conversation with him where I teach him!

I don't understand, teach him what? Is he a slow learner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respond to what? You make a few unsubstantiated statements that do nothing to change the point. Most if not all vaccines will have limitations on a therapeutic basis as they attempt to stimulate and already stimulated immune system. In the case of Gen003 it has not been shown at this time to be any benefit over antivirals.

fixme1 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh people do take me seriously, there are tons of sources. And you know this to be true, do you have point you wish to make?

Can you provide a source please that shows GEN003 exceeds antivirals in general effectiveness?

Rational Vaxxer and fixme1 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thank you, that is the conclusion. If you think different then please explain otherwise this is boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 7:22 PM, WilsoInAus said:

The primary purpose of a vaccine when it comes to viruses is prevention. There are no FDA approved therapeutic vaccines against viruses. Therapeutic vaccines are to date of limited effectiveness against what they are targeting. It just strikes me as more sensible to develop a preventative vaccine for approval and use and if it has therapeutic benefit then that's superb. Further, a therapeutic vaccine has material implications for maybe 1-2% of people with HSV-2 say, yet 100% of people who do not. That would ensure faster payback, bigger investment and benefit from a vaccine for all sooner!

 Dr. Halford has created a therapeutic vaccine and a prophylactic vaccine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, WilsoInAus said:

Oh people do take me seriously, there are tons of sources. And you know this to be true, do you have point you wish to make?

Can you provide a source please that shows GEN003 exceeds antivirals in general effectiveness?

 They can't show that GEN003 exceeds antivirals in general.... because it doesn't   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rational Vaxxer said:

 Dr. Halford has created a therapeutic vaccine and a prophylactic vaccine 

Yes I know and that's the point isn't it. Why not test and get the prophylactic vaccine approved? It is a better sell for investors and probably only has to reduce transmission probabilities by 75%+ for it to be successful! This is concurrent approval for the therapeutic that can have less efficacy than if it has to stand alone as a therapeutic. That doesn't make sense of course, just the way it happens.

fixme1 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Herpes Dating Web Site

    Guest, would you like to try dating another Herpster in your area?

    Search Now
  • Newbies

  • Latest Buzz

    • WilsoInAus
      Boil is my guess too, but if you have concerns then please attend your doctor. If you have been having sex with partner(s) whose STD status you do not know then please consider an STD panel that includes at least HIV, Hep A/B/C, gon, syph, chlam, trich, HSV 1/2.
    • WilsoInAus
      I remember trying to look into this some time ago but best I could come up with was that the chance was say in the range of 1-10% for the sexual episode. Obviously the nature of the outbreak, its positioning etc. all plays a role. You suggest this is HSV-2 with a diagnosis over 12 years ago? Have you checked the type with a blood test? May be a chance it is HSV-1 that your husband may already have for example. Agree that antivirals have no preventative properties, only benefit is taking the edge of the impact of an initial infection if this occurs (which as mentioned is still the realms of quite unlikely). Having HSV-1 does not provide any protection from HSV-2 so the figures show. Interestingly the other way around there is almost complete immunity, that is, people with an established HSV-2 infection are much less likely to be infected with HSV-1.
    • Lisajd
      You are more at risk when there is an outbreak so it is possible but as the other person said he may already have it anyway because if you have been in a relationship with him and having sex over a frequent period it is more likely that he would have it according to the experts.  And if he takes an antiviral straight away it does not stop him from getting it I'm not sure what the above person was referring to there
    • Lisajd
      If a person tells you that their partner has been tested and is negative then you can take that as a yes it can help. No symptoms does not mean not infected. Meds and condims reduce to 1%.  
    • Cas9
      Yes!!!  If antivirals stopped us from being contagious we would all be celebrating naked in Times Square.
    • GlitterDx
      It is still possible to pass the virus while on antivirals. 
  • Trending